I must say, the characters in this play (as far as my experience with it tells me) are all over the place. There's Charlotte who is super shallow and dramatic. Then there is Anya, the little pet. Gayef has his moments when you think he's normal, but then he makes odes to furniture or talks billiards. Mms Ranevsky is poor and worried about losing the orchard but gives money to random drunk tramps wandering on her property. Barbara is fairly normal, but the deepest one is Trophimof, one of the girls' old tutors. He has a profound speech on page 24 when he professes that the educated "understand little or nothing about art. They are all serious; they all have solemn faces; they only discuss important subjects...they eat like beasts and sleep in dirt and bad air...Nothing exists but dirt, vulgarity and Asiatic ways. I am afraid of solemn faces..."
The origins of this brief soliloquy puzzle me. As its content does as well. He is definitely the most contemplative, and for what we know of him, he is educated. He's a tutor, yet he says all these bad things about the educated. He is the perpetual student. Is he saying that everyone romanticizes too much? Especially the educated? Is this just another expression of the decline of the Russian wealthy class? Nobody wants to admit that the "creches" and "reading-rooms" aren't real, because it would make them the same as everyone else. Why would Peter be the one to reveal all this truth? And why in the world is he still involved with the Ranevskys? - KLe-c Mar 2, 2008
Trophimof in this scene is surrounded by upper-class citizens: Lopakhin, Gayef, Mme Ranevsky, and Anya and Barbara. He himself is a relatively poor man--he's still a student. It seems to me that he is trying to give these wealthy people advice about how they should live their lives. For much of the speech, he talks about how the wealthy, educated people in societry get the live the high life--saying things like "thou" and "thee," lounging around doing nothing, treating peasants like dirt--while the vast majority of society is working their tails off and living in poor conditions. He says that this is not only unfair, but it also slows the advancement of society because the rich, who are the best educated, are not working; they're sitting around like lazy bums. The only way for mankind and Russia to keep moving forward is for the rich to get off their high horses and start to work. And to answer your last question KLe, he is hanging around with the Ranevskys because he is in love with Anya.
One thing did confuse me, though; Trophimof has been a student for way too long--isn't it a bit ironic that he is giving this speech when he himself is too lazy to finish school and get a job of his own??? - lma-c Mar 3, 2008
If this is set in the 1880s, and if I read the context clues correctly, then Trophimof is probably a socialist. "Forward! Don't tarry, comrades!" This lingo is indicative of Russian socialists, particularly communists. He is clearly a progressive, and I think that makes him a socialist. As you have said already, he shows a lot of contempt for the upper class. Which I guess brings us to the question of why he is still a student. I think that the symbolic aspect is very important to consider. Most of the uprisings against the governments of Europe at this time took place in schools. The students were where the hope for change was. Trophimof is all about change. "I feel the approach of happiness Anya. I see it coming..." (27). As for his "laziness," I expect that that is a light satire on the communists in general. Many of them were fantastic philosophers, but they did nothing to put their plans into action (when I say fantastic, I mean they spent a lot of time doing it). But maybe I am reading too much into the few lines where he characterizes his beliefs. What does everybody else think? - TRu-c Mar 3, 2008
Kle is correct in saying that Trophimof is the most deep character in the play. I disagree with tru's classification of him as a socialist. It is possible, but I think its too big of a conclusion to make yet. Your evidence for him being socialist can be explained in other ways. For instance, just because he is a progressive does not make him a socialist. Just because communists take over later in Russian history doesn't mean he was that kind of progressive. His contempt for the upper class can be explained by saying that everyone in the lower class has contempt for the other class. Next, your classification of students is very interesting (actually a perfect classification most of Barack Obama's faithful; especially the "hope for change" aspect) and you could have a valid point there, though most of the major uprisings are still a bit into the future. Also, his statements towards Anya about happiness is not necessarily a reference to a change in government, but possibly a hint that he will ask her to marry him (I could be wrong). Also, Checkov, a Russian, probably would not be satirizing the Communists since he wrote this play several years before the communist takeover there, which was the first MAJOR communist exposure. You do bring up some good points and maybe he is a socialist but there are a few problems with classifying him as one.
In answer to kle's question, Peter is the one to reveal truth in this play because he is the only one that is reliable. Think about it, all the other characters have noticeable character flaws and would be unfit to reveal such truths. The girls gossip mostly things that aren't true, ruling them out almost automatically. Gayef is slightly crazy, and Ranevsky is too involved with other matters, not to mention her horrible, unpersonable qualities. - PSp-c
Psp, I disagree. Trophimof is certainly a socialist. In addition to the quotes that TRu mentioned, check the end of Act II as it clearly reveals that Trophimof is a socialist. After voicing his discomtempt for the rich, who he views as lazy, he goes on to criticize the current social system:"Still, at any rate, we've left those two hundred years behind us. So far we've gained nothing at all--we don't yet know what the past is to be to us--we only philosophize, we complain that we are dull, or we drink vodka. For it's so clear that in order to begin to live in the present we must first redeem the past, and that can only be done by suffering, by strenuous, uninterrupted labour." He feels that the current manorial system present in Russia has kept Russia behind the times and advancements of Western Europe. Russia at this time was just receiving this shock after losing the Crimean War, a war that they lost because they were not industrialized at all. Trophimof is abhorred at the backwardness of Russia which is only exacerbated by the Russian social and economic system. The solution, according to Trophimof, is "If you [Anya] have the household keys, throw them in the well and go away. Be free, be free as the wind." This is clearly a socialist statement as he is advocating the abolition of private property as the way to true freedom for all peoples as throwing these keys away will eliminate the tension these keys create with those of lower classes, thus all freeing Anya. Clearly Trophimof is a socialist and this explains the quote that KLE mentioned earlier.- TMc-c Mar 6, 2008
Furthermore, we can see Trophimof's socialist sentiments at the beginning of Act III where he states to Pishtchik: "If the energy which you have spent in the course of your whole life in looking for money to pay the interest on your loans had been diverted to some other purpose, you would have had enough of it, I dare say, to turn the world upside down" (29). In the preceding quote, Trophimof is essentially stating that a more laissez-faire economic system promotes wasted energy in the buying and selling of commodities. Socialism, according to its supporters, would eliminate greed by eliminated class conflict, and by doing so, energy would not be wasted on something as frivolous as loans. Instead, all people would be equally working hard and not wasting their energy as they do in a non-socialist system.
But continuing on, Trophimof's next line is one that expresses his contempt for the wealthy landowners, such as Pishtchik. Such contempt is another key tenet of socialism.
"PISCHIN. Nietzsche . . . a philosopher . . . a very great, a most celebrated man . . . a man of enormous brain, says in his books that you can forge bank-notes.
TROFIMOV. And have you read Nietzsche?
PISCHIN. Well . . Dashenka told me. Now I'm in such a position, I wouldn't mind forging them . . . I've got to pay 310 roubles the day after to-morrow . . . I've got 130 already. . . . [Feels his pockets, nervously] I've lost the money! The money's gone! [Crying] Where's the money? [Joyfully] Here it is behind the lining . . . I even began to perspire." (29)
In these lines, Trophimof again asserts his intellectual dominance over someone who is wealthier that he is, which invalidates the social darwinist tenet of capitalism. Nietzsche was a philosopher whose main concepts were the Ubermensch, or Superman, as well as his belief in the dominating presence of man's irrationality, note that bank-notes were most likely footnotes in Nietzche's books. Thus, Trophimof reveals Pishtchik's ignorance by asking him if he actually knows what Nietzsche is all about, a question which Pishtchik answers in a manner that plays right into Trophimof's hands. This is but another way that Trophimof subtly advocates socialism.
A final interesting quote by Trophimof that I found in Act III was his response to Barbara on pg. 31:
Barbara: "But, mamma, I can't propose to him myself. . . . He's making money; he's always busy; he can't be bothered with me. If I only had some money, even a little, en ten pounds, I would give everything up and go right away. I would go into a nunnery."
Trophimof [mockingly]: what bliss!
For Barbara, the existence of and importance of money has prevented two critical actions in her life: getting married to Lopakhin or going into a nunnery. Trophimof loves Barbara's quote because it plays right into his socialist agenda, specifically his belief that the capitalist currency system ruins people's lives, and furthermore, if only the nation could rid itself of it in favor of a collective, socialist government, the people of Russia could experience true bliss. - TMc-c Mar 8, 2008
I also think that Peter was most likely a socialist. I found it very ironic that Peter was called the "perpetual student." He is ridiculed for his prolonged education, when really he acts as the teacher in the play. Peter is indeed the deliverer of truth--a teacher! KLe asked why Peter is still involved with the Ranevsky's. I think Peter is there for the benefit of the audience. Not only does Peter's ugliness set him apart from the others, but also his progressive outlook and eagerness to share his idealistic thoughts. I felt like Peter was the voice of Chekhov's message. He stood out because he was so much unlike the rest of the characters. Peter finds hope while others find despair. "Perhaps man has a hundred senses, and when he dies only the five senses that we know perish with him, and the other ninety-five remain alive" (24). Madame Ranevsky and her family are saddened over the cherry orchard, but Peter finds a reason for faith. It's easy to be drawn to Peter because of his optimism and refusal to give up. No one readily accepts his philosophies, but Peter doesn't care. I think that is the important thing about Peter's character. Chekhov purposely set him apart from the rest so that his message would come across clearly. - KGa-c Mar 10, 2008
Yeah, well, T's kinda fed up with everything he sees around him. I don't even think it's so much that everyone else is so wrong, just that they happen to be, and are acting in, just the opposite manner than that of T's personality. And he might be the perpetual student, but I don't think that he's that much more learned than the rest of them. But his speech does give some deep insight into the others, and especially into everyone else in the real world, aka Russian society. Fact is, this whole thing's easily read as a commentary on Russia, not just T's speech, but also Firs talks and most of all, the actions of the wealthy characters, notably those described in T's ranting, cuz he's clearly saying those in high places should not be there, and are unfit for ruling Russia. - AZU-C Mar 13, 2008
The origins of this brief soliloquy puzzle me. As its content does as well. He is definitely the most contemplative, and for what we know of him, he is educated. He's a tutor, yet he says all these bad things about the educated. He is the perpetual student. Is he saying that everyone romanticizes too much? Especially the educated? Is this just another expression of the decline of the Russian wealthy class? Nobody wants to admit that the "creches" and "reading-rooms" aren't real, because it would make them the same as everyone else. Why would Peter be the one to reveal all this truth? And why in the world is he still involved with the Ranevskys? -
Trophimof in this scene is surrounded by upper-class citizens: Lopakhin, Gayef, Mme Ranevsky, and Anya and Barbara. He himself is a relatively poor man--he's still a student. It seems to me that he is trying to give these wealthy people advice about how they should live their lives. For much of the speech, he talks about how the wealthy, educated people in societry get the live the high life--saying things like "thou" and "thee," lounging around doing nothing, treating peasants like dirt--while the vast majority of society is working their tails off and living in poor conditions. He says that this is not only unfair, but it also slows the advancement of society because the rich, who are the best educated, are not working; they're sitting around like lazy bums. The only way for mankind and Russia to keep moving forward is for the rich to get off their high horses and start to work. And to answer your last question KLe, he is hanging around with the Ranevskys because he is in love with Anya.
One thing did confuse me, though; Trophimof has been a student for way too long--isn't it a bit ironic that he is giving this speech when he himself is too lazy to finish school and get a job of his own??? -
If this is set in the 1880s, and if I read the context clues correctly, then Trophimof is probably a socialist. "Forward! Don't tarry, comrades!" This lingo is indicative of Russian socialists, particularly communists. He is clearly a progressive, and I think that makes him a socialist. As you have said already, he shows a lot of contempt for the upper class. Which I guess brings us to the question of why he is still a student. I think that the symbolic aspect is very important to consider. Most of the uprisings against the governments of Europe at this time took place in schools. The students were where the hope for change was. Trophimof is all about change. "I feel the approach of happiness Anya. I see it coming..." (27). As for his "laziness," I expect that that is a light satire on the communists in general. Many of them were fantastic philosophers, but they did nothing to put their plans into action (when I say fantastic, I mean they spent a lot of time doing it). But maybe I am reading too much into the few lines where he characterizes his beliefs. What does everybody else think? -
Kle is correct in saying that Trophimof is the most deep character in the play. I disagree with tru's classification of him as a socialist. It is possible, but I think its too big of a conclusion to make yet. Your evidence for him being socialist can be explained in other ways. For instance, just because he is a progressive does not make him a socialist. Just because communists take over later in Russian history doesn't mean he was that kind of progressive. His contempt for the upper class can be explained by saying that everyone in the lower class has contempt for the other class. Next, your classification of students is very interesting (actually a perfect classification most of Barack Obama's faithful; especially the "hope for change" aspect) and you could have a valid point there, though most of the major uprisings are still a bit into the future. Also, his statements towards Anya about happiness is not necessarily a reference to a change in government, but possibly a hint that he will ask her to marry him (I could be wrong). Also, Checkov, a Russian, probably would not be satirizing the Communists since he wrote this play several years before the communist takeover there, which was the first MAJOR communist exposure. You do bring up some good points and maybe he is a socialist but there are a few problems with classifying him as one.
In answer to kle's question, Peter is the one to reveal truth in this play because he is the only one that is reliable. Think about it, all the other characters have noticeable character flaws and would be unfit to reveal such truths. The girls gossip mostly things that aren't true, ruling them out almost automatically. Gayef is slightly crazy, and Ranevsky is too involved with other matters, not to mention her horrible, unpersonable qualities. -
Psp, I disagree. Trophimof is certainly a socialist. In addition to the quotes that TRu mentioned, check the end of Act II as it clearly reveals that Trophimof is a socialist. After voicing his discomtempt for the rich, who he views as lazy, he goes on to criticize the current social system:"Still, at any rate, we've left those two hundred years behind us. So far we've gained nothing at all--we don't yet know what the past is to be to us--we only philosophize, we complain that we are dull, or we drink vodka. For it's so clear that in order to begin to live in the present we must first redeem the past, and that can only be done by suffering, by strenuous, uninterrupted labour." He feels that the current manorial system present in Russia has kept Russia behind the times and advancements of Western Europe. Russia at this time was just receiving this shock after losing the Crimean War, a war that they lost because they were not industrialized at all. Trophimof is abhorred at the backwardness of Russia which is only exacerbated by the Russian social and economic system. The solution, according to Trophimof, is "If you [Anya] have the household keys, throw them in the well and go away. Be free, be free as the wind." This is clearly a socialist statement as he is advocating the abolition of private property as the way to true freedom for all peoples as throwing these keys away will eliminate the tension these keys create with those of lower classes, thus all freeing Anya. Clearly Trophimof is a socialist and this explains the quote that KLE mentioned earlier.-
Furthermore, we can see Trophimof's socialist sentiments at the beginning of Act III where he states to Pishtchik: "If the energy which you have spent in the course of your whole life in looking for money to pay the interest on your loans had been diverted to some other purpose, you would have had enough of it, I dare say, to turn the world upside down" (29). In the preceding quote, Trophimof is essentially stating that a more laissez-faire economic system promotes wasted energy in the buying and selling of commodities. Socialism, according to its supporters, would eliminate greed by eliminated class conflict, and by doing so, energy would not be wasted on something as frivolous as loans. Instead, all people would be equally working hard and not wasting their energy as they do in a non-socialist system.
But continuing on, Trophimof's next line is one that expresses his contempt for the wealthy landowners, such as Pishtchik. Such contempt is another key tenet of socialism.
"PISCHIN. Nietzsche . . . a philosopher . . . a very great, a most celebrated man . . . a man of enormous brain, says in his books that you can forge bank-notes.
TROFIMOV. And have you read Nietzsche?
PISCHIN. Well . . Dashenka told me. Now I'm in such a position, I wouldn't mind forging them . . . I've got to pay 310 roubles the day after to-morrow . . . I've got 130 already. . . . [Feels his pockets, nervously] I've lost the money! The money's gone! [Crying] Where's the money? [Joyfully] Here it is behind the lining . . . I even began to perspire." (29)
In these lines, Trophimof again asserts his intellectual dominance over someone who is wealthier that he is, which invalidates the social darwinist tenet of capitalism. Nietzsche was a philosopher whose main concepts were the Ubermensch, or Superman, as well as his belief in the dominating presence of man's irrationality, note that bank-notes were most likely footnotes in Nietzche's books. Thus, Trophimof reveals Pishtchik's ignorance by asking him if he actually knows what Nietzsche is all about, a question which Pishtchik answers in a manner that plays right into Trophimof's hands. This is but another way that Trophimof subtly advocates socialism.
A final interesting quote by Trophimof that I found in Act III was his response to Barbara on pg. 31:
Barbara: "But, mamma, I can't propose to him myself. . . . He's making money; he's always busy; he can't be bothered with me. If I only had some money, even a little, en ten pounds, I would give everything up and go right away. I would go into a nunnery."
Trophimof [mockingly]: what bliss!
For Barbara, the existence of and importance of money has prevented two critical actions in her life: getting married to Lopakhin or going into a nunnery. Trophimof loves Barbara's quote because it plays right into his socialist agenda, specifically his belief that the capitalist currency system ruins people's lives, and furthermore, if only the nation could rid itself of it in favor of a collective, socialist government, the people of Russia could experience true bliss. -
I also think that Peter was most likely a socialist. I found it very ironic that Peter was called the "perpetual student." He is ridiculed for his prolonged education, when really he acts as the teacher in the play. Peter is indeed the deliverer of truth--a teacher! KLe asked why Peter is still involved with the Ranevsky's. I think Peter is there for the benefit of the audience. Not only does Peter's ugliness set him apart from the others, but also his progressive outlook and eagerness to share his idealistic thoughts. I felt like Peter was the voice of Chekhov's message. He stood out because he was so much unlike the rest of the characters. Peter finds hope while others find despair. "Perhaps man has a hundred senses, and when he dies only the five senses that we know perish with him, and the other ninety-five remain alive" (24). Madame Ranevsky and her family are saddened over the cherry orchard, but Peter finds a reason for faith. It's easy to be drawn to Peter because of his optimism and refusal to give up. No one readily accepts his philosophies, but Peter doesn't care. I think that is the important thing about Peter's character. Chekhov purposely set him apart from the rest so that his message would come across clearly.
-
Yeah, well, T's kinda fed up with everything he sees around him. I don't even think it's so much that everyone else is so wrong, just that they happen to be, and are acting in, just the opposite manner than that of T's personality. And he might be the perpetual student, but I don't think that he's that much more learned than the rest of them. But his speech does give some deep insight into the others, and especially into everyone else in the real world, aka Russian society. Fact is, this whole thing's easily read as a commentary on Russia, not just T's speech, but also Firs talks and most of all, the actions of the wealthy characters, notably those described in T's ranting, cuz he's clearly saying those in high places should not be there, and are unfit for ruling Russia. -